Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-10-14
THAT SIGNATURE.
Testimony of the Defendant, Eu
gene Garnier.

Testimony of the Defendant, Eu-
gene Garnier.
Promptly at half-past O'Clock yes
terday the continuance of the locally
famous Oxarart case, in which ranch
of 1000 acres, situated about twenty
miles from the city in the San Fernan-
do valley, and valued at 100000, is
the "bone of contention" was COM
menced. The legal fraternity seems
to regard this case as a bonanza, and
the number of legal luminaries en-
ploved in the case is great. Messrs.
Mckinley, Judge Allan, Gowner and
others appear for the defendant, while
the prosecution is represented by
Messrs. Chapman, Biscaliuz, Roberts
and Smith.
A. j. King, j. Brousseau, H. Allen,
Chas Beebe and Thos. Temple testi-
fed in behalf of defendant, the gist of
their testimony going to show that the
signature of Oxarart to the agreement
is genuine. Thomas Temple in par
ticular testified that the signature was
undoubtedly genuine, as he had hand
led innumerable checks signed by Ok
arart and would know it among thou
sand.
Every precaution was taken by the
prosecution to show that the signature
was forgery. Photographic tracings
have been taken of each letter of the
real signature and the alleged one and
there is a noticeable lack of analogy.
The letters of the real signiture are
very irregular and made by a tremu
lous movement, while those of the al
legged signature are smooth and per-
fectly formed, the greatest difference
being in the RS of each signature.
GARNER, the defendant, was sworn
and took the stand, stating before
hand that he spoke French best, be-
ing unable to speak English plainly.
He stated that he had known Oxarart
from 1866, and had done business with
him for period OF eight years. Their
relations had always been friendly. In
1866 he had $4,000 His business re-
lations with Oxarart resulted in his
becoming indebted to Oxarart to the
amount of $3.50. for which amount his
note was given. Documents were
here shown to witness, which he iden-
titled as those which had passed be-
tween him and Oxarart at the time.
Mr.. Mckinley asked witness to state
whether any business transactions had
taken place between himself and Oxa-
rart between the years rs and "a.
Witness was very evasiVe and re-
fused to give direct answer.
In the spring of 1877, witness was
residing with his brother, Edward,
when Oxarart made him an offer of
$68, 900 for the ranch, but witness had
no desire to sell, as he had spent $685.
600 in improving it. To liquidate h s
financial Indebtedness, witness had
placed mortgages on the land which
nearly covered its value.
Judge O'Melveny here stated that
owing to Carriers inability to
speak the English language plainly, it
was impossible for him to obtain a
proper conception OF the testimoney.
The defense experienced the same diff
Guilty and GARNER left the Court to pro-
cure an. interpreter, shortly returning
with N. Mercandenti, who was sworn
in as an interpreter, and the examina-
| ton proceeded. Witness stated that
there was an agreement between him
self and Oxarart for the latter to buy
the mortgage upon the land for $685.
399. so which he did in the course of
time. (The agreement in question
was here shown witness and he at
once identified it, stating that Oxarart
had signed the same in his presence,
and the agreement was acknowledged.
He did not know who wrote the agree
ment, but Oxarart had given it to
him in February, 1886. Oxarart took
possession of the Encino ranch in
| December 1877, and rented it for some
time to Gamers brother. Oxarart at
all times acted in accordance with
the agreement, recognizing defend
ants right to redeem the ranch.
Witness had no business with
Oxarart, after signing agreement
other than to enter suit to obtain title
to the ranch. Witness stated that he
was not given time to pay the mort
gage of $4,000 by Oxarart, in order
to redeem his property. He ha
| failed to settle with Oxarart, because
he wished to procure the money from
the Farmers and Merchants Bank
and could not do so at proper time.
Witness was then cross-eXamined
by the prosecution. N. Mercandenti
proved inefficient as an interpreter
and Geo. j. Dennis acted in that
capacity during the examination of
the prosecution, which failed to elicit
anything that had not been brought
out by the defense and court adjourned
until to-day at 8 A. NJ.